Report Inappropriate Comments

I think we need to let Roy’s testimony speak for itself. You can view it by going to http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/31170369 and moving the video player to 1:58

Roy lets us know he is confused by all the terms being thrown out at the meeting. He claims not to know “the rules of the game” or what the pros and cons of the issue are. He then goes on to tell the committee, who clearly have took more time to research the so called rules of the game and the pro and cons than Roy has. That he does not think they can come to a decision because HE does not understand the issue.

So the first stand Roy took was that since ROY does not understand the issue, no one else does either, therefore we can’t make a decision.

Roy then takes his second stand. Since there are more people on the pro side then the con side the issue is not being spoken about in a “balanced way”. He fails to mention that both sides had the same amount of time to let their people know about the meeting, one side simply did a better job of organizing or perhaps had MORE people on their side to start with.

Roy then takes his third stand. We should hear the pros and the con like they do in court. Yet Roy can’t offer either the pros or the cons, so the city’s decision making must sink to the level of the lowest common denominator when it comes to empirical data about the issue. In this case it seems that Roy is self admittedly the least educated among us about the issue, despite the fact that Roy could use Google to get all sorts of data, or he could drive across state lines in to Connecticut, or Mass or any other New England state to gather information. By the way, he can drive to any of these states since despite the fact that they have passed marriage equality, they have not burst into flames or fallen into the sea. Roy seems to think that since he has not done the work it gather the needed data, they we all should wait for him to catch up.

Roy takes his forth stand. We are trying to create 2 “institutions” one two thousand year old and another, according to Roy has been around 25 or 30 years. I am assuming they Roy is getting the number 2,000 from the claim that the Catholic Church makes that it is 2,000 years old. By doing this Roy suggest that the only valid marriages are Catholic marriages, he discounts all the marriages that took place before the Catholic Church was established. Good thing he does that, he would have a hard time explaining Solomon’s MANY wives.

He takes a fifth stand. We need to know about the “impact” of marriage equality on our society, schools and churches” as I already said Roy can Google this information or go to any other NE state and find this out. The fact that he is just too lazy to do so is no one’s fault but his own.

Roy’s Sixth stand reveals the true nature of Roy’s concerns he quotes Bishop Tobin says he wants to know about the impact of marriage equality on the Catholic Church and other Catholic own businesses such as hospitals. Note he is only worried about CATHOLIC intuitions. All the rest don’t matter. Her wants to fashion the law in such a way to give the Catholic Church special protection. Think back to the connection I made to the extremist Catholic and evangelicals and the Taliban or Al Qaida a few comments back.

If Roy bothered to take the time to READ the resolution he WOULD KNOW the impact!

. The bill clearly states that “This act would allow any two (2) individuals, who are otherwise eligible under chapter 15-1, to marry regardless of gender, while protecting the freedom of religious institutions to make their own decisions regarding marriage eligibility within their own faith’s tradition, without interference from the state. This act would also prohibit any state agency or local government from penalizing any clergy for refusing to solemnize a marriage under this chapter”. So it would have NO impact on the church.

As far as other businesses owned by the Church they would be subject to the same laws that any other secular business would be. The truth is many of these laws already speak to some of the issues Roy might be concerned about. For example there are already anti discrimination laws on the books that would forbid a business to deny service to an individual based on race, gender, creed, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender expression. So passing marriage equality or NOT passing it would have no effect on these businesses, there are already laws in place that speak to those issues.

Roy takes a seventh stand. It is wrong for the City Council to make a blanket statement about this matter.

Roy’s eighth stand is that there should be ANOTHER meeting about this matter. Forget everything you heard tonight, everyone come back, and get the opposite side. Again he fails to mention that both sides had equal notice and one side simply had more people. Roy, you don’t get a “do over” just because you lost.

Roy takes his ninth stand that the city council is not being courageous, but in Roy’s words “the opposite of that” by taking a vote that night.

So I guess TECHNICLY Roy is correct, Roy did not take A STAND, as in ONLY ONE stand, Roy took nine stands. Each of Roy’s NINE stands was based on a self admitted lack of knowledge. A lack of information Roy seems strangely proud of.

From: Marriage equality endorsed at emotional, one-sided hearing

Please explain the inappropriate content below.